Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Moral Question: Interacting with Traditional Values

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Affirmative Action Policies and Judicial Review Worldwide

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 47))

  • 1042 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, affirmative action is set in a broader conceptual background, as defined by other fundamental constitutional values, such as democracy (in a procedural or substantive perception), justice (on a distributive or attributive perception), dignity and meritocracy and, reasonably enough, the principle of equality itself. The inner relationship between affirmative action and equality is a key-element for the better understanding and implementation of the former policy. If affirmative action penetrates into the rudiments of equality, thus becoming an inexorable feature of this principle, it is incumbent on us to accept that equality has been mutated and affirmative action needs to be taken into account when defining equality in the first place. If, on the contrary, there is no institutional transformation of equality, then affirmative action should be conceived and treated as any other exception from the principle of equality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    (1992) Supp (3) SC 217, para. 678.

  2. 2.

    Politics, volume III, chapter 12 and Ethics Nicomachean, line 1131a, b.

  3. 3.

    ΒVerfGE 57, 335 (1981) and ΒVerfGE 74, 163 (1987).

  4. 4.

    Opinion of 6th April 1995 of Advocate General Tesauro in CJEU decision of 17th October 1995, case C-450/93, Eckhard Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen, Rec. 1995, p. Ι-3051, para. 28.

  5. 5.

    CJEU judgment of 17 October 1995 in Case C-450/93, Eckhard Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen, Rec. 1995, p. I-3051.

  6. 6.

    ECHR Judgment of 22nd Octobert 1996, Stubbings et als. v. UK 23 (1997) ΕΗRR 213, para. 71 and ECHR of 18th February 1991, Fredin v. Sweden, 13 (1991) ΕΗRR 784, para. 60.

  7. 7.

    Tribunal Constitucional nº 128/1987, judgment of 16th July 1987.

  8. 8.

    Inda Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SC 217, paras. 405, 686.

  9. 9.

    Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro of 6 April 1995 in Case C-450/93, Eckhard Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen, Rec. 1995, p. I-3051, paras. 11, 16.

  10. 10.

    BVerfGE 45, 187 (1977).

  11. 11.

    401 US 424 (1971).

  12. 12.

    Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306, 368 (2003).

  13. 13.

    Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954).

  14. 14.

    Shaw v. Reno, 509 US 630, 648 (1993).

  15. 15.

    572 US, Case No. 12-682 (2014).

  16. 16.

    Infra, 5.2.3.1.2.

  17. 17.

    Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244, 305 (2003).

References

  • Appiah, Κ.Α. (1998). The limits of pluralism. In Α.Μ. Melzer, J. Weinberger and M. R. Zinman (Eds.), Multiculturalism and American Democracy 37-54. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. and Waddington, L. (2003). Reflecting on inequalities in European equality law. European Law Review, 28(3), 349-369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindman, Sir G. and Monaghan K. (2014), Judicial Diversity. Accelerating change. Resource document. http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/uploads/other/06_11_2014_12_11_31_06.11.14.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2014.

  • Bobbio, N. (1994). Destra e Sinistra: ragioni e significati di una distinzione politica. Rome: Donzelli. English edition: Bobbio, N. (1997). Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction (trans: Cameron, A.). Cambridge: Polity Press, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio N. (1995), Eguaglianza e libertà. Torino: Einaudi Contemporanea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braibant, G. (1999). Réflexions sur le principe d’égalité. European Review of Public Law, 11(2), 443-454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, D. (1995). Justice and the A.D.A. [Americans with Disabilities Act]: Does prioritizing and rationing health care discriminate against the disabled?. Social Philosophy and Policy, 12(2), 159-184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, Μ. (2002). Against equality of opportunity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S.D., and Tangri, S.S. (1989). The justice of affirmative action. In F.A. Blanchard and F.J. Crosby (Eds.). Affirmative action in perspective (177-192). New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, C. (2003). Why race preference is wrong and bad. In C. Cohen and J.P. Sterba. Affirmative action and racial preference. A debate (1-188). Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P.P. (1990). Public law and democracy in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. (2006). On political equality. New Heaven-London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey Α.V. (1885), Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution. 10th ed., 1959, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1981a). What is equality? Part Ι: Equality of welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(3), 185-246. Reprinted in R. Dworkin, Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality (pp. 11-64). 2002, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R. (1981b), What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(4), 283-345. Reprinted in R. Dworkin, Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality (pp. 65-119). 2002, Cambridge MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R. (1987). What is equality? Part 4: Political equality. University of San Francisco Law Review, 23(1), 1. Reprinted in R. Dworkin (2002), Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality (pp.184-210). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R (1998a), Affirming Affirmative Action, Review of The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok. The New York Review of Books, 22 October. Reprinted: Affirmative Action: Does it Work?. In R. Dworkin, Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality (pp. 386–408). 2002, Cambridge MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R (1998b), Is Affirmative Action Doomed? The New York Review of Books, 5 November. Reprinted: Affirmative Action: Is it Fair? In R. Dworkin, Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality (pp. 409-452). 2002, Cambridge MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, J.H. (1980). Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. (1999). Human dignity as a legal value. Part I. Public Law, 682-702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. (2000). Human dignity as a legal value. Part II. Public Law, 61-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition. New York – London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraisse G. (1995), Muse de la raison. La démocratie exclusive et la différence des sexes. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaspard, F., Servan-Schreiber, C., and Gall, Le A. (1992). Au pouvoir citoyennes!: Liberté, égalité, parité. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale B. Rt. Hon. Dame (2001). Equality and the Judiciary: We want more women judges. Public Law. 489-504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, D. (2000). Group rights: reconciling equality and difference. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, E. (2004), Why history remains a factor in the search for racial equality. In P. Gurin, J.S. Lehman and E. Lewis (Eds.), Defending diversity: Affirmative action at the University of Michigan (pp 17-60). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1690), Second Treatise of Government. C. B. Macpherson (Ed.), 1980, Cambridge MA: Hackett Pub Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovatt, S.C. (2015), The democratic deficit. Seattle WA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinoff, L. (2000). Equal opportunity versus employment equity. Sexuality and Culture, 4, 23-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J.S. (1960), Utilitarianism, liberty, representative government. London-New York: Everyman Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossuz-Lavau, J. (1998). Femmes/Hommes pour la parité. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelerman, Ch. (1971). Egalité et valeurs. Bruxelles: Bruyant L’Egalité I, Travaux du Centre de Philosophie du Droit de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Α. (1993), Democracy and difference. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J, (1999). Theory of Justice. Revised ed., Boston MA: Belknap Press, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J., and Kelly E. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyna, C., Tucker, A., Korfmacher, W., and Henry P.J. (2005). Searching for common ground between supporters and opponents of affirmative action. Political Psycology, 26(5), 667-682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P.C. and Stratton, L.M. (1995). The new color line: How quotas and privilege destroy democracy. Washington DC: Regnery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuppert, F. and Koetter, M. (Eds.), (2012-2013). Understandings of the Rule of Law in various Legal Orders of the World. http://wikis.fu-berlin.de/display/SBprojectrol/Home. Accessed 31 Dec 2014.

  • Scott, J.W. (1996). Only paradoxes to offer. French feminists and the rights of man. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1995). Equality of What?. In S.L. Darwall (Ed.). Equal Freedom: Selected Tanner Lectures on Human Values (307-330). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silkenat, J.R., Hickey J.E.Jr., Barenboim, P.D. (Eds.), (2014), The Legal Doctrines of the Rule of Law and the Legal State (Rechtsstaat). Heidelberg-New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer, Series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, Vol. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slama, Α.G. (2004) Contre la discrimination positive. La liberté insupportable. Pouvoirs – Revue Française d’Études Constitutionnelles et Politiques (Discrimination Positive), 111, 133-143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohr, G. (2004). A black and white case: How affirmative action survived its greatest legal challenge. Princeton: Bloomberg Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, S., and Guinier, L. (2001).The future of affirmative action. In S. Sturm, and L. Guinier (Eds.). Who’s qualified? (3-36) Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Ch. (Ed.) 1994. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribe, L.H. (1979). Perspectives on Bakke; Equal protection, procedural fairness, or structural justice. Harvard Law Review, 92, 864-877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urofsky, M.I. (1997). Affirmative action on trial: Sex discrimination in Johnson v. Santa Clara. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach Scott J. (2005), Parité!: Sexual Equality and the Crisis of French Universalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, J., Haltern, U., and Mayer F. (1995). European Democracy and its Critique. Five Uneasy Pieces. Florence: European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre Working Papers 11/95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yotopoulos-Marangopoulos, Α. (1998), Affirmative Action. Towards effective gender equality. Athens–Brussels: Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers- Établissements Émile Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    George Gerapetritis

Authors
  1. George Gerapetritis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Gerapetritis .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gerapetritis, G. (2016). The Moral Question: Interacting with Traditional Values. In: Affirmative Action Policies and Judicial Review Worldwide. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 47. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22395-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22395-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22394-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22395-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation